NYTimes essay says AI can process info but cannot replace judgment

In short: A New York Times Opinion guest essay by philosopher Simon Critchley argues that AI can handle information, but it does not make human judgment.

What happened

Simon Critchley wrote a New York Times Opinion guest essay titled “The Id, the Ego and the Superintelligence.” In it, he says today’s AI systems can retrieve facts, summarize writing, and recombine ideas. He argues those skills are real, but they are not the same as judgment.

Critchley’s point is that judgment is about deciding what matters. It is choosing what is worth keeping, what is worth ignoring, and how to weigh two competing answers when both sound reasonable. You can think of AI like a very fast assistant who can bring you a stack of options, but it cannot tell you what you should care about.

He also argues that this is why philosophy still matters. Philosophy, in his view, is the kind of thinking that helps people ask “What is the right goal?” before asking “How do we get there?” He suggests AI companies need that kind of thinking because judgment is not just math or calculation.

The New York Times page indicates it includes reader responses, plus a separate item described as “Watching Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.” However, the information available here does not include those responses or enough detail about the Ocasio-Cortez item to summarize them reliably.

Why it matters

AI tools are increasingly used in school, work, and government to speed up decisions. Critchley’s argument is a reminder that faster answers do not automatically mean better decisions, and that people still have to decide what “better” means.

Source: NYTimes